: 9000's are better than 900's!
9th February 2002, 04:40 AM
Probably not a very easy one - but my main point is to provoke some response and get some life onto the 9000 forum.
The 9000's are bigger, the fastest ones are faster (in standard guise) and are far prettier!
Okay then, maybe a 900T16 3 door is prettier - and they certainly have a good following going by the banter on the 900 forums on this site.
On the down side, my 9000 isn't exactly nimble, and suffers from torque steer and understeer, but the brutal acceleration forgives the inadequacies.
I certainly like the classic 900 - I'd like to have one to complement my 9000 Carlsson, but I wouldn't sell my 9000 to replace it with a 900!
That should get some responses!
PS. I'm being lighthearted in case you are mustering the boys up to come pay me a visit! :wink:
9th February 2002, 04:47 AM
Forgot to say - this will also give an indication as to how many 900 owners browse the 9000 forum....
9th February 2002, 05:51 AM
Do not have much to say on the 9000s.
I pretty like them and like very much the Carlsson ones (or "Sport", as called here in the Continent) as well as the Aeros.
However, I would go without any doubt for the Carlsson rather than the Aero.
What I much deslike is the steering wheel even more horizontal than the already to much horizontal one of the 900 and the plastic of the dash, too crackle and noisy in my experience.
I prefer the fisrt 5 door series rather than the CS and do not consider at all the CD which, in my opinion, is something very heynos.
9th February 2002, 06:09 AM
Should add that one of the neighbours has got a black 9000 sport with crossspokes alloys and I look at it with a kind of (good) envy!
PS: due to fiscal reason, here in Italy the Carlsson/Sport's were fitted with 2.0 liter engines (instead of 2.3). Though, they were not the normal Saab 2 liter units since the power was of 220hp (stock).
The Aero CS had the normal 2 liter engine with 185hp as by that time the 2.3 was also available.
That was the same reason that led BMW to reduce the size of the E30 M3 engines to 2.0 from 2.3 and to sell only here the 320is, with four cilinder motor and 192hp.
1992 900ep Aero
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ep gio on Feb 9, 2002 11:10am ]</font>
9th February 2002, 08:36 AM
Glad you like the Carly's! I suppose the standard 9000's look quite plain - good cruisers though.
I actually do like the CS's - especially the rear end. My Carlsson is the last of the older shape 5 door - with the sloping headligths (Picture attached).
On another bulletin board I'm on, a very frequent topic is Aero v Carlsson. Preferences tend to come down to driving styles - with the cars delivering the power slightly differently. I've heard the Aero tends to deliver the power smoothly, whilst the 2.3 Carlsson is more "brutal" - the end accleration is very similar.
In the UK the 2.0 Carlsson was 195BHP (I think) and the 2.3 was 220BHP, with the CS Carlsson getting 225BHP - as per the Aero.
I am thinking of upping my cars power, though this will have to be accompanied with some suspension mods, as the car struggles with traction and torque steer as it is!
What power does the 900 Aero get in Italy?
1991 9000 Carlsson 2.3T
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kprm77 on Feb 9, 2002 1:42pm ]</font>
9th February 2002, 09:49 AM
I agree, the rear end is nice on the CS.
Actually, I am not very sure about the power of the Carly Italian 2.0 engine. Maybe my memory does not serve me properly!
900s here have got the very same power of the others: Mine is a LPT (here "ep") and has got 141 or 145 hp (both figures have been declared, but since one pays taxes on the level of power, better 141!), T16 160 hp and Aero (or T16S) 175 hp (latest model 180-185 hp -same reason as above -)
Does yours have alcantara/leather seats?
9th February 2002, 10:08 AM
I would say that the 9000 has some advantages over the 900, but the 900 has more style. The 9000 has a better and more efficient gearbox and is more refined. The 2 litre engines are pretty much the same but the 2.3 gives the 9000 a real advantage.
The handling of the 9000 is generally not reckoned to as good as the 900 (although it is still good).
To me however, it's the image and looks of the 900 that matters. The 9000 looks like many other cars and there is therefore no special reason to favour it over many other fast cars (except that they are very cheap to buy).
BTW, the 900 is larger (i.e. longer) than the 9000 by one inch :smile:
9th February 2002, 01:27 PM
I know that the 900's are actually longer (this surprised me when I first found out) - it's when you come to reverse park a 900 you realise how long they are.
I would say the 9000 boots are bigger, and they are huge as far as passengers go - never sat in the back of a 900, so not sure there.
The 900's do have style. I would go so far as to say the 9000's are handsome cars - one of the things I do like the most is the understated looks. I bet a lot of big engined Beemers have had a fright when coming up against a 9000 Aero.
900's and 9000's are both excellent cars in their own rights - that is why we all like Saabs. They have there own different appeal. I know there aren't many messages on this 9000 board, but I regularly visit another UK board where the 9000 has a similar following as the 900 has on these boards.
I'm going off the 900v9000 track here, but the 9000 is an excellent alternative for those after a large, quality car, without the image of a BMW. I must admit I couldn't get too excited over my first 9000, a XS 2.0i though it did look superb, and was a huge complement to Saabs engineering considering its excellent state after 150,000 miles. When warm - the car was quieter than a Ford Orion we had when it was brand new. They are superb large cruisers - and if you want the power there is the choice of many Turbo models.
Admittedly on my 2.3 Carly, the combination of the power and the handling scares me a bit - though thankfully there are many after market tuners for 9000's.
As you mentioned - the prices are lower than 900's too. I'm sure you wouldn't get a decent 900 Carlsson for £2000, but you could get a decent 2.3T 9000 Carlsson for that.
Luckily, the baseball cap on backwards lot haven't cottened on yet. You'd still pay £2.5k to £3k for a poor 1988 Sierra Cosworth - but for less money you could have a more powerful, newer, solid 9000 2.3T Carlsson. The Cossies may have it to 60mph, with the 9000's 364 tonnes, but the mid range is a different matter.
I don't say luckily just because of the image - but a huge following would bump up prices and definately insurance premiums.
I don't think you can really compare a 900 to a 9000, because they were always aimed at a different market. Now you could compare a 900 to a BMW 3 series - I know what I'd rather have!
9th February 2002, 01:51 PM
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>Does yours have alcantara/leather seats? </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR size=1 color=black></TD></TR></TABLE>
Don't know what "Alcantara" is, but mine has black leather with suede type inserts.
9th February 2002, 02:42 PM
Yes, those inserts I like so much. They make the seats kinda richer and more exclusive. I wish I had them on mine. Moreover, it is the very point to look at for the purpose of spotting a true Carly from a fake one!
The 900 could be longer but, I think, the distance between the front wheels and the rear wheels is shorter. That should make the car obviously more handling and nervous on twisty roads.
On the other side, the 9000 should be more precise at high speeds, i.e. over 160kmh.
IMO what both 900 and 9000 lack most is an auto-locking differential (maybe 25%) to give a decent grip on wet tarmac.
The cossies seem to be funnish and hellishly fast but too much ugly to be considered.
However, before buying this 900 a went to see a couple; I gave it up since they were in a too pity state, rattling all around.
1992 900ep Aero
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ep gio on Feb 9, 2002 7:44pm ]</font>
10th February 2002, 04:57 PM
9000 Carlssons - especially 2.3's seem to becoming harder to find these days.
I looked nationally on Britain's largest web site for second hand cars (autotrader) and this week only found 2 9000 Carlssons in the whole of the UK!
One was a tatty looking 1989 2.0 for about £1500, and the other was a 1991 2.3 for £3995. It had only done 96k miles, though seems hugely expensive - you can get a 9000 CS Aero for that money!
Maybe they are starting to get a following - in much the same way the 900T16s already has. It would be very nice to have an appreciating Saab! No, I'm dreaming - that would be miraculous!
11th February 2002, 07:56 AM
Hey, you already got one.
You cannot imagine how rare the 9000 Carly is here. Probably here it is more rare than the Lotus Carlton.
11th February 2002, 10:19 AM
Well I had no time at all for the 9000's I thought they were butt ugly until I saw a black '89 F Carlsson with about 100k on it here:
It's sold now, but I was very tempted. It had perfect body work and wheels, with red stripes down the side and a big stripy reflector on the back.
To be honest it reminded me of a fair ground ride, which I had to respect it for.
It was up for about £5K.
11th February 2002, 11:57 AM
Ep Gio, The 9000 Carlssons aren't that rare here - Lotus Carlton's are very rare indeed. A Lotus Carlton would make my car feel limp in comparison!
Keith - £5k for a 1989 Carlsson? I take it that was several years ago. I'm not selling mine, but would assume it was only worth about £2k (160,000 miles).
Maybe one of the Carly owners is going round blowing up all other Carly's to bump up the price of his! (Hope he doesn't find mine!)
I do think the later Carlssons are better looking - the later ones have a more sloping front end / lights.
11th February 2002, 12:06 PM
It was about Sept 2001, and was spotless.
Windscreen price was £4995 I think.
I'm not saying I would have willingly handed over £5k to them but it opened my eyes to car I had not even considered before. It was an upright headlight model.
11th February 2002, 04:53 PM
And I thought a spotless 2.3 9000 Carlsson with 96k miles was expensive at £3995!
You can have mine for 4 grand if you want!
15th February 2002, 10:14 AM
I too am of the looks and image persuasion. I liked the 900 b/c it was cheap and unique. I needed a car to run to work in, and one that I could take skiing, mountain biking, and backpacking without worrying about it. I like how much more Character the 900 has; though in the states, there is only an alfa 164 which shares a similar body, and the newer 9000's I think look really spiffy, though I never ran across one for sale, nor considered one much. . . I hear they can be pretty fast, though. I had always heard that they weren't as reliable as the old 900, is that true?
15th February 2002, 05:12 PM
I like 900's too! Basically, 9000's are better value here in the UK, and if you can get hold of one of the sporty versions, you get all the value, lots of performance, and they don't look too bad either!
I've not heard that they are unreliable. They seem to suffer from the same ailments as the 900's, though I have heard people say that the 900 gearbox last longer. I've also heard it said that 9000 2.3 Turbo's eat gearbox's - my Carlsson would bear that out - it's on its third gearbox. Luckily, the 2 extra gearboxes were not at my expense!
The times my previous 9000's have let me down have been the battery (once), and the alarm/immobiliser (twice). The 9000 came very high in the last JD Power survey it was included in, in the UK - the owners were very happy with the cars, the only common problem being the electrics.
PS. More blasphemy - saw one of the new shape BMW 7 series - I thought it was very nice. Blasphemy ends..
20th February 2002, 11:35 AM
Well, hopefully one day my little 900 will be all fixed and "suped" up, and I can trade for my beamer for a newer Beamer, though I don't think this one will ever let me down or give up the ghost (they are simply bomb-proof cars!), so I can continue the shameful blasphemy. I'm glad to hear the 9000's are good; if I run across one I'll reccomend it to a friend who's looking!
4th March 2002, 12:16 AM
In my search for a car about 6 months ago, I wanted a 9000 turbo very badly. I prefer the CDs because I think a trunk looks better on a 9K and a hatch on the 900 is better than the trunk. I could not find a 9000 turbo but I did find and bought the ultimate 900, an SPG.
9000's are simply better than 900s in my opinion. They have all the cool stuff (digi climate control, computers, very large inside, etc etc.).
But, Saab continued to make the 900 because the driving experience is like no other. Forget meaningless 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. What other car is set up like a 900? Is there anything besides a cars from Italy that give you that same 'feel'? My car is raw, noisy, and you can feel everything from the turbo spinning to every bump on the road. The noise the turbo emits is more auidible than any other turboed car. Simply put, 900s are alive. (Sorry I had to get that off my chest)
As far as looks go, they are about even. I would like to hear someone say their 900 is better than that cream puff 9000 you have pictured. Are you really selling that? Ill trade my car for that in a second....
4th March 2002, 04:27 PM
Hhhhmmmmm. I would have a 9000 tomorrow, and in fact was gonna get one for the wife, until I read that they are on the same floor plan as the Fiat Chroma and the Lancia Thema. I'd still have one though, but Im not letting the wife have one! Gonna get her a Vauxhall Omega instead.
Still, I do like the 9000 Carly!
5th March 2002, 12:29 PM
Hmmm... 900's are better looking, they carry that "Classic" Beauty. I just dont see the 9000 having the same amount of Oomph that a 900 does. I'm sure they're fast and all, but I could never go from a 900 to a 9k. I am not trying to put anyone down, Buuuut,..900's are BETTER!!
5th March 2002, 05:48 PM
Viktor - nope, my cream puff 9000 is not for sale. (It's white actually - picture didn't reduce very well).
As for the "drivers car" question - I've driven about 5 or 6 classic 900's, and none of them did anything for me as a drivers car. Admittedly, the same goes for most 9000's I've driven. That's why I bought the Carlsson - it is brutally fast, can feel all the bumps, is a definate handful and most importantly fun.
I've never driven a 900T16s, but assume that would have the qualities you speak of! I do like the 3 door 900's, but the 9000 is just so much of a better buy (in the UK at least). Over here, a decent Classic 1991 900 T16s would set you back anywhere between 2 and 4 grand (GBP), though a very nice 9000SE 2.3T of the same vintage could be had for about 1.5k.
PS is an SPG the same as a T16s? (They're always mentioned on the boards, but I've never got a clue what they are).
5th March 2002, 07:44 PM
yes, the SPG is the American version of the T16s, plus a cat., minus 5-10 hp, also some other , minor, differences.
And now I can say without shame that I want a 96 9000 Aero.
6th March 2002, 05:10 AM
Dan - the Aero's are lovely cars. (I want one too!)
The perfect situation would be to have your 900 SPG and an 9000 Aero, so you could choose whichever suited your needs for that day!
I recently purchased "Road and Track on Saab 1972 -1982" (presume this is a US mag?) - A constant theme throughout seems to be the testers getting hold of Euro spec machines to test drive, only for reduced power cars making it to the States after the cats etc had sapped some power away.
There were some test figures for a 9000 2.3 Turbo which were very impressive (0-60 in 6.8 secs), though the power was down at 200BHP as opposed to 220BHP for the Carlsson's over here. There must have been some other mods, as my Carlsson does have a Cat - though not for too long :wink:
12th February 2003, 06:11 PM
I've never actually driven a 900, so this is probably of limited value. However, I find my new 93 9000 CSE Turbo to be incredibly nimble and quick. Granted, this is my first European Car, but it certainly puts away the numerous American and Japanese cars I've driven.
900's may be a little sportier looking, but 9000's appear to be a somewhat more practical option without losing much in terms of drive quality. (Extensive passenger and cargo space as well.)
My friend has a 900 which has had significant repair issues as well. Is there any data supporting the idea that 9000s are generally more reliable, or is this a case by case issue?
13th February 2003, 09:27 AM
I have to confess that I'm committed to 9k's and am currently on my 3rd. A fully kitted classic 900 is certainly a head turner but the 9k Aero beats it simply because of the leather armchairs that Saab had the infinite grace to install. For those of us of a more generous build the seats contain our ample buttocks comfortably and safely as we zoom past the 900s. :lol:
I've never driven a classic 900 so I am in no position to give a knowledgeable opinion on ride or performance except to say the 9k is better in every way. So there! :cheesy:
10th March 2003, 06:44 PM
switched from 900 to 9000 in December after 5 years of 900s. Basically I got the chance of a good condition 2.3 CD for ridiculous low money and I felt I wanted to keep my low mileage 86 900 8v Turbo (full spec leather etc)in good nick but needed to commute 90 miles a day. The 9000 is a very relaxing car to drive long distances smooth with good performance and very very comfortable and quiet. Two weeks ago however the auxiliary drive belt broke and while I was waiting on a replacement I reverted to the 900 turbo for a few days. Felt strange at first. But after a few miles I was grinnig again. Raw, bit of a brute even. The slight push into the leather seats as it takes off to the sound of the Turbo. The feel of the road through the steering wheel the notchy gearbox. What did it remind me of? A 60s sportscar, my GT6 even. So what do I think? For rapid stress free commuting in comfort the 9000 is hard to beat. For a joyous driving experience and a bit of grunt the 900 Turbo wins.
11th March 2003, 08:44 AM
Carlsson - it is brutally fast, can feel all the bumps, is a definate handful and most importantly fun
I agree - I recently bought my first Saab, and was lucky enough to get hold of a '91 2.3t Carlsson :cheesy:
As a first step into the world of Saabs, I feel it could possibly be downhill if I drove any other stock model...
12th March 2003, 11:11 AM
This thread's been going for over a year now! (Well, I suppose it was revived ;) :D )
Sold my Carlsson last year and regret it almost daily. Couldn't afford to keep the car, but wished I could. May get a 9-5 Aero next year but can't see that being as brutal as the Carly.
Not into all this smooth delivery nonsense, give me a no nonsense Carlsson any day ;) :D
[edit fopr wrong smiley :roll: ]
12th March 2003, 11:30 AM
Well I'm in the fortunate position to have got one of each- a pretty standard T16S and a modded to bu66ery 9000.
So which is better? It really depends on your definition of "better". The 9000 is obviously much quicker and far more sure footed, but it's not quite as "entertaining" to drive. I can't put my finger on quite why I like the T16S, but I do.
All I can say though is that if we compare like with like- My standard T16S (note: I've just replaced all the shocks) with, say a standard Aero, the handling of the 9000 is better- the suspension is not so much stiffer as better damped, so when you're belting down country lanes, you feel far more in contact with the road in the 9000.
But they are very different animals, so it's perhaps unfair to compare them. If you define "better" as purely faster, then obviously the 9000 is going to win- cos it gets a 2.3 with a big blower! But if "better" means a drive with more character and individuality, then the 900 eats it...
12th March 2003, 11:36 AM
But they are very different animals, so it's perhaps unfair to compare them.
True. Though my main aim at the time of posting the thread (bearing in mind this was a year ago when it was still saab-900.com) was to get some life in the 9000 forum, which at that time was very quiet. Seems to have provoked some reaction anyway ;) :D
All the 900's I've driven (about 6 of them) have failed to inspire me at all. Then again these were mostly non tubo's - the only turbo I drove was well and truly sh4gged! I need to drive a T16s to be able to draw a comparison. Any offers? ;) :D :D :D
12th March 2003, 12:54 PM
Well, I've driven about 6 9000's and 3 900's. The most chuckable was without any doubt, the 900 Carlsson I drove. I regret not buying that and buying a moneypit of a 9000 Carlsson. But I fell in love with the Black 88 Carly, such and aggressive looking car and soooo black. :D
In an ideal world I'd have a c900T16S or Carlsson in standard trim with a monster modified 9000 Aero. As it is I'll have to settle for my plenty-quick 9000CD, which I admit is no oil painting. :(
NOTE: I've fixed the headlamp wiper since I took the pic above!